D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Tony Vargas]

The "style" in question involves playing a fighter and making tactical choices that don't involve resource management. Many D&D players do not like tracking resources, for a variety of reasons

Nod, and that doesn't mean they should only be able to enjoy playing fighters. Nor does liking resource management mean that casters should be your only option.

It's what I meant. Creating a first level core fighter that requires you to pick a daily power is a no-go; it forces everyone down that road. Creating another non-core class (warblade?) that does so, or adding on a "superpowers" module that modifies the classes (including fighters) is fine. Options.

And having a core fighter that only gets at-will abilities forces everyone down /that/ road. Which one is core and which one is optional - and nothing stops both from being options /for the fighter, itself/, even in core - makes no real difference. Well, for longtime D&Ders and experience gamers in general. For the new player, whether the fighter is going to perform as an equal in the core game as he first experiences it is going to make a difference, particularly if he's drawn to the archetypes the fighter represents.

A core that uses a common mechanical structure - preferably one without a lot of resource management, actually - might actually be the best approach. It would provide a shallower learning curve and more consistent experience for new players, would be easier to balance (a boon for new DMs), and would provide a firm foundation for advisedly adding modules that broaden options, preferably across the board, but also to customize the game to model the imbalances and lovable foibles of past editions as efficiently as desired.

Though, really, the /ideal/ such game (simple for beginners, opening to a wealth of depth and options for experienced players), would probably have all the complexity 'behind the curtain' from the very beginning, so that opening it up to options really is just opening alternatives to things that can already be done in the core game...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When the first talks of D&D Next started, I hoped for something that unifies the Essentials Fighter and the 4E Fighter in some form.

Basically, at every so and so levels, a Fighter would select either a Daily or Encounter Power, or he would select a passive "always on" feature. The "always on feature" would have the limitation of only being balanced against the daily XP budget.

I'D even hoped that there would be a "Dwarf" Class in the Basic Set. Which is just a Dwarven Fighter with pre-selected choices at certain levels, representing the archetypical Dwarf Fighter. In a later rulebook, these choices could be explained and alternate choices could be introduced. I think that would have been a cool approach, to genuinely bring the game back to its roots, while maintaining all the modern design elements.

But no such luck.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Nod, and that doesn't mean they should only be able to enjoy playing fighters. Nor does liking resource management mean that casters should be your only option.

Of course not. Fighter is just the most common example. I'm a fan of the 3.5 warlock, for instance. Break from tradition? Sure. But it also gievs the player a magic character without having to track a huge chart of spells per day. I also don't think clerics should be on the Vancian system or anything like it; their mechanics should reflect their divine connection and they should get what they ask for, if it's dramatically appropriate/balanced (and thus, often should not get what they ask for). I'm also a rogue fan, and I think the nonmagical classes are too few in number and too limited in function.

As to resource management, there's a place for it. I wouldn't mind a legit combat fatigue module; that would really change the game.

By all means, more support for the many varied playstyles out there.

And having a core fighter that only gets at-will abilities forces everyone down /that/ road. Which one is core and which one is optional - and nothing stops both from being options /for the fighter, itself/, even in core - makes no real difference. Well, for longtime D&Ders and experience gamers in general. For the new player, whether the fighter is going to perform as an equal in the core game as he first experiences it is going to make a difference, particularly if he's drawn to the archetypes the fighter represents.

Supposedly, the optoins in 5e will be more at the forefront than they've ever been, so hopefully this is not true; i.e. hopefully no one will be forced into anything. But as to this point, if you have to choose between what's core and what's an addon, core should probably be about D&D's heritage and about what's popular, which is where WotC is at right now.

A core that uses a common mechanical structure - preferably one without a lot of resource management, actually - might actually be the best approach. It would provide a shallower learning curve and more consistent experience for new players, would be easier to balance (a boon for new DMs), and would provide a firm foundation for advisedly adding modules that broaden options, preferably across the board, but also to customize the game to model the imbalances and lovable foibles of past editions as efficiently as desired.

Though, really, the /ideal/ such game (simple for beginners, opening to a wealth of depth and options for experienced players), would probably have all the complexity 'behind the curtain' from the very beginning, so that opening it up to options really is just opening alternatives to things that can already be done in the core game...

Some good points in there.

 

[billd91]

Ah yes. The druid that doesn't use Wild Shape, head into melee, and rack up the kills quite nicely himself when added to his bear companion. The druid that isn't actually leveraging his abilities.

I'm not aware that he is required to do so. Isn't this a play style issue?

 

[Incenjucar]

Wrong, wrong, wrong and right.


Keywords. Not really. Just denotes power source, and usually a equivalent for other power sources. They're just something to hang other mechanics onto.
Damage types are increasingly irrelevant in 4e as resistances and immunities go away as "unfun".

Blatantly and horrifically false. You're ignoring the depth of the game for the sake of your strawman.

Keywords tie into feats, class abilities, magic items, and other special features in many, many builds. Maybe not the ones YOU use, but that's a personal choice you've made.

Damage types are still quite important in 4E, even with them not being an on/off switch of whether or not they damage something.

It's entirely possible that you, and your groups, have selected out the most boring and generic aspects of the game, forming some kind of gestalt of blandness, but if you really think that radiant damage and poison damage are equivalent...

 

[Jester David]

Keywords tie into feats, class abilities, magic items, and other special features in many, many builds. Maybe not the ones YOU use, but that's a personal choice you've made.

The keywords unlock options, but that doesn't make the base power different. You may not be able to use "arcane boost feat Y" with a martial power, but you can use the equivalent "martial boost feat X" instead, added for balance and equivalence.
And, at the end of the day, you can take a power and swap the keyword and the power does not change. It does not affect the power. You can swap "spell" for "prayer" and change "divine" to "arcane" and no one would likely notice.

If you have identical cars with different names, but car Y has an spoiler attachment as an option that can legally only be applied to car Y, that doesn't mean the un-modified cards are any less identical.

Damage types are still quite important in 4E, even with them not being an on/off switch of whether or not they damage something.

It's entirely possible that you, and your groups, have selected out the most boring and generic aspects of the game, forming some kind of gestalt of blandness, but if you really think that radiant damage and poison damage are equivalent...

But, if there's no mechanical equivalent, is there a difference? It's not like fire always burns for ongoing, poison does damage over time, cold slows, and the like. Any of the ways other games differentiate energy types.
For 90% of the game, energy type is irrelevant.

 

[Pickles JG]

I'm not aware that he is required to do so. Isn't this a play style issue?

If you are making the case that two classes are balanced against one another but you only use a fraction of the abilites of one of those classes then the argument falls a little flat.

The last 2 3.5 campaigns I played in had druids dominted by druids by about 10th level as they were able to have more offensive out put than was possible for a raging barbarian, one personally by becoming King Kong & the other through the agency of his cat. Their defences were solid too partly because if the cat died noone cared really (well everyone but the druid was pleased).
The cat guy was also the person who embraced the 5 minute working day as his suite of buffs was only available for 1 fight a day (it should have been more at higher levels but I lost the will to carry on so I am not sure what happened)

I am a little exasperated at all of the people who have no intention of actually playing 5e as written complaining about what it is going to be like. I want my games to be playable out of the box/book with no house rules or optional rules - I consider it the game designers job to come up with the best game he can not a bunch of half assed variations. Given I play more boardgames et al than RPGs I suppose I may be an outlier.

 

[Jester David]

Now either you don't know how to play the classes to their strengths or you are poor at tactics.

Was that really a necessary addition? Did you need to say that? Do comments like that ever add anything to the discourse but anger?

A Two Weapon Ranger is a very high damage glass cannon. Seriously low AC but does more damage per round than any other class. Where they belong is tucked in close to the fighter for protection, and to be able to focus fire with as many people as possible.

An Avenger needs to isolate and gank - they have the tools to do it. If they try to stand under the fighter's wing on the battle line they are just going to look like a complete chump because their major class feature (Oath of Emnity) simply doesn't work of they are in the middle of a line fight. Pick one foe, neutralise it, and pound it into the dirt. On the other hand the Avenger can have the AC of a full scale tank fighter and can force enemies to come away with it.

A Rogue needs combat advantage. +2 to hit and +2d6 damage almost doubles the rogue's DPR at low levels - and the sneak attack isn't too far off this even at higher levels. If a rogue attacks without combat advantage the rogue's attack sucks. In order to be doing their job properly, a rogue should be attacking with combat advantage every round - and that means either forcing or exploiting an opportunity. On the other hand they have tools to do both among their powers - both a lot of mobility for flanking and a lot of powers that daze, blind, or the like.

Avenger, Two Weapon Ranger, Rogue. Try to play any one the same as any other and you are going to look like a complete chump. (Well, the two weapon ranger can work in either of the other styles as long as the difficulty setting is on low).

From your example, the rogue and ranger do play similarly. Both move of the enemy but stay close to the fighter, likely both manoeuvring for a flank because the +2 to hit is nice, and both cannot take a hit.
The avenger, there is a slight difference to play. It was probably a poorer example on my part.

My point was not that there are NO differences in play, but that they are small, and that people will FIND differences. My point was that 4e classes are identical but, under close examination, fans will find ways to say "nuh-uh".

Again, people look for patterns and even when facing identical twins they will spot differences and variations. This is the Uncanny Valley situation.
So you didn't really disprove anything I said.
Kinda almost proved it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you are making the case that two classes are balanced against one another but you only use a fraction of the abilites of one of those classes then the argument falls a little flat.

Is anyone ever using 100% of a class's abilities?

The last 2 3.5 campaigns I played in had druids dominted by druids by about 10th level as they were able to have more offensive out put than was possible for a raging barbarian, one personally by becoming King Kong & the other through the agency of his cat. Their defences were solid too partly because if the cat died noone cared really (well everyone but the druid was pleased).

So, I read that in the last two campaigns you played in, certain characters were imbalanced. I can't tell from this information whether this was a function of certain players playing differently than others, the DM failing to create diverse enough challenges or rein in rules abuses, or because the system itself was so imbalanced that no reasonable DM and players could ever have a balanced druid. Then again, given my own experience, I'm inclined towards the former.

I am a little exasperated at all of the people who have no intention of actually playing 5e as written complaining about what it is going to be like. I want my games to be playable out of the box/book with no house rules or optional rules - I consider it the game designers job to come up with the best game he can not a bunch of half assed variations. Given I play more boardgames et al than RPGs I suppose I may be an outlier.

I play more rpgs than boardgames, and I'm not looking for those things. No offense; not to say that your opinion is invalid, but I can't say I agree with it.

 

[Pickles JG]

My point was not that there are NO differences in play, but that they are small, and that people will FIND differences. My point was that 4e classes are identical but, under close examination, fans will find ways to say "nuh-uh".

Again, people look for patterns and even when facing identical twins they will spot differences and variations. This is the Uncanny Valley situation.
So you didn't really disprove anything I said.
Kinda almost proved it.

I disagree. The differences are smaller on paper than they are in actual play where they are very noticeable. All of those little riders and the inbuilt class features really make a difference. I have played at tables where 3 melee rogues were all playing & all felt different - one applied negative conditions one moved people about & one did massive damage.

I do take the point that the "power sources" have been somewhat homogenised. A swordmage being an arcane defender may feel more like a fighter than a wizard. Actually that's a bad example as swordmages are quite unusual. Invokers/wizards are probably closer together than invokers/clerics. Though that said I made a buffing Bard, Sorcerer & Cleric in 3.5 & they were much more similar than the buffing Cleric was to another melee frontliner cleric I used to play.

There are certainly too many powers that are very similar & the game may have had a stronger buy in for people if each power source had used the same powers but with different riders depending on class/role.